You assume much is my point and I have already said why.
That scientists generally know what they're talking about and it makes sense to place trust in their conclusions, especially when those conclusions are entirely reasonable? Yes, I do assume that but isn't it sensible to do so?
You still haven't explained why you think the facts I stated in my post are somehow in error.
You assume much is my point and I have already said why.
That scientists generally know what they're talking about and it makes sense to place trust in their conclusions, especially when those conclusions are entirely reasonable? Yes, I do assume that but isn't it sensible to do so?
You still haven't explained why you think the facts I stated in my post are somehow in error.
Scientists are just people like you and me with a high degree of specialized study behind them, that does not give them superhuman powers to peer into the past and validate their assumptions on what they came up with using abductive reasoning. The same limitations we have they do too as we look and try to come up with the best explanation. The ability to get it wrong is always there, and the foundational truths we use to determine our rationale if we get those wrong, we are hopelessly wrong. I find it amazing that you will tooth and nail defend somethings about the distant past and utterly reject others simply because they agree with what you want to be true.
Scientists use a number of dating techniques to establish the age of rock strata, so we can be confident such estimates of age are reliable. There's no vanity here, if such techniques hadn't shown themselves to be reliable they'd have been abandoned long ago.
And even if you fool yourself into believing the deepest strata are a mere few thousands years old, it doesn't answer the puzzle of why the simplest lifeforms are always at the lowest levels and more and more complex ones are found as you go upwards. The creationist 'theory' of life predicts that there should be an equal distribution of all the various forms of life throughout rock strata.
There is absolutely nothing in the fossil evidence within rocks that confirms that all the various forms of living things emerged at the same time. It's a ridiculous proposition.
Scientists use a number of dating techniques to establish the age of rock strata, so we can be confident such estimates of age are reliable. There's no vanity here, if such techniques hadn't shown themselves to be reliable they'd have been abandoned long ago.
And even if you fool yourself into believing the deepest strata are a mere few thousands years old, it doesn't answer the puzzle of why the simplest lifeforms are always at the lowest levels and more and more complex ones are found as you go upwards. The creationist 'theory' of life predicts that there should be an equal distribution of all the various forms of life throughout rock strata.
There is absolutely nothing in the fossil evidence within rocks that confirms that all the various forms of living things emerged at the same time. It's a ridiculous proposition.
There is nothing in the fossils that suggest anything, our dating methods and the story that people get from them have more issues than answers. The methods of dating can be very consistent, that just means the math with the results doesn't vary, that does not, however, mean what we think it means is actually a fact, it only means we know how to do the math with consistent results. Several issues show up with time and the theories that suggest the fossils could have evolved in the allotted time, these things you have no worries about, but they are just as valid as the points you accept when looking at these things, and why we should look at these things more closely.
Absolute certainty is elusive in all manner of human endeavour but that isn't to say that we can't be extremely confident that dating methods as applied to rock strata produce consistent and reliable results.
What is beyond all reasonable doubt is that simpler lifeforms slowly evolved into more complex ones as (geological) time passed. The notion that all life emerged at the same time does not stand scrutiny.
Facts don't change and they are not a matter of opinions, and right now no one has the ability to look into the past and see it, so we have to look at the world around us and draw our own conclusions with the best thinking we can come up with. So if things don't fit, you either acknowledge that and look for something better or hold your breath hoping someone else will show up so you don't have to throw away what you want, which is what you do.
....
Cling to scripture all you want, the evidence in the rocks beneath our feet does not lie!
Young Earth-ism has nothing to do with scripture, whatsoever. It is simply a scam, to hoodwink retirees out of their pension checks.
It is not supported by any evidence. Is not taken seriously. And is not anything close to science.
Are you sure? I was reacting to this comment by T_M in #7....
"Actually not true, at the start according to the text, stars were set up to be seen immediately, it should be noted too that even before the sun and stars were created, God made light."
That looks a lot like a reference to Genesis to me.
The point I am making is, the majority of Creationists in the world do not subscribe to this Young Earth junk.
Facts don't change and they are not a matter of opinions, and right now no one has the ability to look into the past and see it, so we have to look at the world around us and draw our own conclusions with the best thinking we can come up with. So if things don't fit, you either acknowledge that and look for something better or hold your breath hoping someone else will show up so you don't have to throw away what you want, which is what you do.
Not for the first time I'm not sure what you're talking about. In the context of fossils in rocks, if it's possible to date the age of rock strata with some degree of precision (it is) and there're fossilised remains of creatures buried within those strata, then we can attach an age to those fossils.
And when the kinds of lifeforms become ever more complex as we move from the very ancient towards the present, then it strongly suggests that more complex forms of life followed after the simpler forms.
What's complicated about that? The conclusions we draw from such evidence are intuitive.
By contrast, if all creatues had emerged at the same time, then all manner of different types would be found in all layers or strata but this is not the case!
....
Cling to scripture all you want, the evidence in the rocks beneath our feet does not lie!
Young Earth-ism has nothing to do with scripture, whatsoever. It is simply a scam, to hoodwink retirees out of their pension checks.
It is not supported by any evidence. Is not taken seriously. And is not anything close to science.
Are you sure? I was reacting to this comment by T_M in #7....
"Actually not true, at the start according to the text, stars were set up to be seen immediately, it should be noted too that even before the sun and stars were created, God made light."
That looks a lot like a reference to Genesis to me.
The point I am making is, the majority of Creationists in the world do not subscribe to this Young Earth junk.
I don't care how many subscribe to it one way or another, it isn't a numbers game those who have the most believers win. It is what is the truth, and can we know it, and if so how. If you tell me you can measure something and calculate the rate that is saying something, but it is not much at all different than saying I can measure the speed of a car on a highway, it gives a snapshot, while other factors are not available, starting point, consistency, are my conclusions a representation of the thing I am claiming it is? So the dating method is loaded with assumptions about things we cannot know, treating it as if it were a factual statement that goes beyond what we should call the facts, due to the unknown of key pieces of information.
We can look at what we do see, the fossils themselves, if a common ancestor for all life were true then we should expect a progression of life looking very similar, slowly changing over time while getting more complex and numerous. We don't see that! What we see are new bodyforms showing up and disappearing, fully formed with eyes, all the different systems we see in life concerning sexual, circulatory, eyesight, and so on.
If we are called out for saying we don't understand therefore God did it, it should be equally repugnant to say we don't understand, evolution did it. Things we do understand like informational direction acting upon the material world we never see those types of things doing functionally complex work without a mind behind it, yet, some are very content in saying we don't know how evolution did it.
Facts don't change and they are not a matter of opinions, and right now no one has the ability to look into the past and see it, so we have to look at the world around us and draw our own conclusions with the best thinking we can come up with. So if things don't fit, you either acknowledge that and look for something better or hold your breath hoping someone else will show up so you don't have to throw away what you want, which is what you do.
Not for the first time I'm not sure what you're talking about. In the context of fossils in rocks, if it's possible to date the age of rock strata with some degree of precision (it is) and there're fossilised remains of creatures buried within those strata, then we can attach an age to those fossils.
And when the kinds of lifeforms become ever more complex as we move from the very ancient towards the present, then it strongly suggests that more complex forms of life followed after the simpler forms.
What's complicated about that? The conclusions we draw from such evidence are intuitive.
By contrast, if all creatues had emerged at the same time, then all manner of different types would be found in all layers or strata but this is not the case!
I think you are in error.
You show me the proof of your factual statement, you made a claim, back it up. The sudden appearance of fossils in huge numbers in different strata, do all of the earliest look alike, no. Do they in time past slowly change into different lifeforms from very similar-looking life, no! Therefore oddly if I were to accept what you say should have looked very similar early on, but they don't! The lack of similarity of life, that all were supposed to be coming from the same initial life form, is non-existent. What we see instead are the sudden appearances of life in what we call different periods, they have very dissimilar-looking body forms, but they show up fully formed nonetheless, design could explain that chance and necessity, but not so much.
A (sealed) water tank has a leak in it and the water is dripping out slowly at a known rate in litres per day. If the water in the tank is at a given level, is it possible to calculate how long ago the water was at a higher level?
Most of us were set simple problems like this at school so we know perfectly well that it's possible to make such calculations. Radiometric dating using radioactive isotopes is similar in that the rate of decay of the radioactive material is known with precision.
All that has to be done is to measure the relative amounts of remaining radioactive material and the products of fission, do some math(s) and the length of time for which the sample has been decaying can be found.
You show me the proof of your factual statement, you made a claim, back it up. The sudden appearance of fossils in huge numbers in different strata, do all of the earliest look alike, no. ....
No, you made a claim, that all life emerged at the same time and I merely pointed out the fallacy in that.
I suppose there were those who clung to the geocentric model of the heavens long after it had been shown to be false but it gets tedious having to explin such simple principles in thread after thread.
The broad principles of evolution are so thoroughly accepted now that even the main religions of the world abandoned their skepticism decades ago!
A (sealed) water tank has a leak in it and the water is dripping out slowly at a known rate in litres per day. If the water in the tank is at a given level, is it possible to calculate how long ago the water was at a higher level?
Most of us were set simple problems like this at school so we know perfectly well that it's possible to make such calculations. Radiometric dating using radioactive isotopes is similar in that the rate of decay of the radioactive material is known with precision.
All that has to be done is to measure the relative amounts of remaining radioactive material and the products of fission, do some math(s) and the length of time for which the sample has been decaying can be found.
As I pointed out, without knowing the beginning or all of the necessary information so that we know nothing is being overlooked, seeing a container leak is not the same thing, because with the container we know the starting point, it will never be more than the container can contain, you don't know that with rates without that knowledge.
You show me the proof of your factual statement, you made a claim, back it up. The sudden appearance of fossils in huge numbers in different strata, do all of the earliest look alike, no. ....
No, you made a claim, that all life emerged at the same time and I merely pointed out the fallacy in that.
I suppose there were those who clung to the geocentric model of the heavens long after it had been shown to be false but it gets tedious having to explin such simple principles in thread after thread.
The broad principles of evolution are so thoroughly accepted now that even the main religions of the world abandoned their skepticism decades ago!
So you believe different life started in different places in different times, well, good what evidence do you have for that?
The entire fossil record.
You cannot prove your position by restating your position, it is circular.
I'm not stating or restating some 'position', I'm stating a number of facts.
Which particular facts in my post do you disagree with?
You assume much is my point and I have already said why.